Essay 1 - What is Philosophy?

[Note: all the posts headed as Essay are part of the Mazdalogic writings and act as bricks within a pillar holding up the roof of a building and so must be taken seriously]

In the old days in Ancient Greece, a small boy was sent to our private teacher for close tutoring. The teacher was amongst the wisest in the country and the boy was expected to do well. The first class was sociology and the teacher started the lesson.

"The smallest unit in a society is the individual. Individuals come together and form families. Tell me, little boy, name the members of a family."

"Father, mother and child."

"Good, little boy. Can you tell me how you came to be alive?"

"Yes teacher. Because of my parents."

"True. And how did your parents come to be alive?"

"Because of their parents."

"Well done. And how about them? How did they come to be alive?"

"They had parents too."

"Bravo! And them?"

At this point the small boy jumped in agitation. "They all had parents! Everyone that is and was alive had parents!"

Frustrated, the small boy sat down for the second lesson late afternoon. The lesson was alchemy.

"What is gold?" asked the teacher.

"It's a metal, teacher."

"What is a metal?"

"It is a hard substance - like iron, teacher."

"What is iron?" asked the teacher.

"It's also a metal. They make swords with it, sir."

"What is a sword?"

"When will this end, sir?"

"When you reach the ends of the earth and the depths of the fathomless sea and the edges of the celestial dome."

Angrier than before, the small boy passed the second lesson in a bad mood.

During lunch, the teacher decided to test his pupil once more.

"Why do you eat?"

"Because I want to grow."

"Why do you want to grow?"

"So I can support a wife and many children."

"Why do you want a wife?"

"So that I will be happy."

"Why do you want to be happy?"

The small boy didn't know how to explain. For him happiness was an obvious desire. So, instead, the boy decided to turn the tables on his teacher.

"Why do you ask these questions?"

"So you answer them."

"Why do you want me to answer them?"

"So you learn."

"Why do you want me to learn?"

"So you can earn."

"Why do you want me to earn?"

"So you can support your wife and many children. Isn't that what you wanted?" replied the teacher.

At this point the small boy stayed silent. There were no more "why's" to ask and he felt the teacher had shrewdly answered him.

In the last lesson, evening time, the teacher started teaching the alphabet. He pointed at the shape called "Alpha" and asked the boy to pronounce. But the boy would not pronounce. Try as he might, the teacher was unable to get him talking.

"What is this letter? Why don't you answer?"

The boy looked furiously at his teacher and said, "if I say this is "alpha" you will ask me to pronounce "beta" and if I pronounce "beta" you will ask me to pronounce "gamma" and if I pronounce that you will take me to the last letter of the alphabet. Once we finish with the alphabet, you'll begin teaching me geometry and arithmetic, after that history and drama, politics and rhetoric will follow later and metaphysics and theology also. The more I submit to your lessons, the more lessons I am given. The more I learn, the more there is to learn. I will not submit to this never-ending madness. I quit!"

And the teacher was shocked to find such a clever pupil quit on his first day in school. But in this first day, the teacher knew he had taught the basics of philosophy.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As the fiction above showed, philosophy is nothing but constant inquiry into appearances and concepts. It is asking what such-and-such is, why such-and-such is the case and how such-and-such is the case.

The fiction also showed what themes this constant inquiry is subjected to. The small boy faced inquiry in his sociology lesson, his chemistry lesson, his dialogue during dinner and even in his linguistic lesson. This points to the fact that in every study philosophy is involved. Indeed, when we remember that philosophy is nothing but questioning, we can understand why every study is based on philosophical ground.

The fiction also hinted when we should engage in philosophy and when we should stop. The teacher began his classes with questions and continued asking - this process ended abruptly when the boy became angry. This could be a reminder that philosophical inquiry should be between people who are patient, willing, understanding and passionate about philosophy.

Many knowledgeable people were deemed unwise when people observed their impatience - because impatience is a sign of arrogance, which is a cardinal sin in this field.
If people are not willing to engage in philosophy, they will not taste the sweetness of this amazing field of human understanding and if we try to talk to them they will change the subject or ignore us altogether.
Understanding is key to philosophy. So many great philosophers were forgotten because they spoke with people who did not understand. Many philosophers were executed for a similar reason. Thus, one must target understanding people with rational mindsets to explain their philosophy.
Passion, though irrational, is the driving force of life. We must love thinking. We must adore philosophy. We must want to do it every moment of every second of every minute of every day! It is extraordinary but understandable why most Western Philosophers never married... philosophy and knowledge was the love of their lives... a bit over-the-top for me personally, but it is true.

However, in our fiction, the boy was not patient, not willing, not understanding and certainly lacked any passion for learning. However, he was a clever boy who did not have the necessary behavioural requirements for study.

Therefore, whenever the boy lost his patience, the teacher would stop his inquiries until he had calmed down.

Another time to stop (apart from 'bad audience') is demonstrated in this fiction. When the boy shows his cleverness and begins asking questions of his teacher, the teacher answers every single question with patience and respect until a satisfying answer is agreed upon.


Therefore, philosophical inquiry does end at a point - the point which is agreed by all the minds involved. If somebody does not agree with the inquiry, they can voice their objection and the inquiry will recommence.

But what is the essence of Philosophical Inquiry?


One of the ways to know the essence of something is to know its limits.
The essence of inquiry can be understood from the following passage:

"When will this end, sir?"

"When you reach the ends of the earth and the depths of the fathomless sea and the edges of the celestial dome."

This notes the limitlessness of philosophical inquiry. The reason it is limitless is because humans can analyse what they experience and they can analyse their own analysis and they can analyse the analysis of the analysis ad infinitum.

One may say: philosophical inquiry has an ending according to one of your arguments, and is limitless according to another - but this is impossible.

We will say: The number of inquiries is limitless. But each inquiry in itself has a limit. So, for example, "What is gold?" will eventually reach a limit, but there are infinite number of inquiries one can make simultaneously. (e.g. What is silver? What is nickel? What is air? What is a bucket? What is love? ad infinitum.)

So philosophical inquiry is like a rectangle with a length of infinite and a limited width. Inquiries that make up the length are infinite in number. There is no limit to what you can ask in general. However, the subsequent questions resulting from the original inquiry (which make up the width) are limited. This is because there is a limit to what you can ask about something specially.

One may say: Why is there no limit to what one can ask?

We will say: Because if we ask a question such as "why x?" we can then ask "why did we ask 'why x'?" and we can then ask "why did we ask 'why did we ask 'why x' '?" and so on ad infinitum.

But why is this so?

This returns to who we really are - our essence - Mazda - which I will discuss in future essays. However, for now it suffices to say that we are able to "analyse our own analysis" - we are self-aware and we can study our own actions and then go on and study our own studies.

One may say: If there is no limit to what one can ask - why is there a limit to what one can ask "about something"?

We will say: This understanding is rooted in logic and epistemology and we shall discuss this in great depth in future essays. However, we will assume that everyone accepts "causality" for now. (future essays will prove causality and answer the challenges from the skeptics)

Every existing event requires a "Sufficient Reason" for existing. Sometimes the reason is not "sufficient" and so the reason itself would require another reason - and sometimes this will go on - but due to our assumption that every existing event requires a sufficient reason we will continue inquiring until we reach the ultimate reason. This ultimate reason would not need a reason for itself and thus the inquiry will end.

An example of the above is the following:
(1) Why do you write a book? To earn money.
(2) Why do you want to earn? To have money to buy food.
(3) Why do you want to buy food? To eat when I'm hungry.
(4) Why do you want to eat when you are hungry? Because if I don't I will die - which I don't want.
I agree. Death is not convenient (!)


Each given answer was in itself not a sufficient reply for the person asking. In other words, the inquirer's mindset was not satisfied with the first few answers - this dissatisfaction can be seen as s/he continued inquiring, narrowing down the reasons until s/he reached the ultimate reason - for the inquirer, not wanting to die was a sufficient reason for writing a book.

Of course, not all of us would have followed up the inquiry past answer (1). It seems pretty obvious to us why someone would want to earn money.

Yet, the purpose of this argument was to show that every inquiry in itself will end. The epistemological reason for this is based on the limitations of what we can know and also because of what philosophers call a priori knowledge (this shall be explained in future essays)

However,
One may say: Although it is true that we may find a reason satisfyingly sufficient, it does not mean that it actually is sufficient. So we can't say just because we 'feel' it is sufficient that it truly is. This means that we can not posit that every inquiry has an ultimate reason. Instead, every inquiry will go on forever with no end in sight.

We will say: To say every inquiry has no end means that every reason has a reason, which in turn has a reason with no beginning in this chain of reasons.

Let us say: Z> Y and Y> X and X> W and W> V ...

Yet for Z to happen Y needs to happen, X needs to happen, W needs to happen, V needs to happen and another "infinite" reasons have to happen. We all know that you can never count infinite because there will also will be + 1. So, something that is infinite will never happen because there will always be 1 more event happening. This is what we call a regress.

Regresses are impossible by nature. Therefore, any such chain where each event is subsequent to another event is finite, not infinite. This is called a Sequential relationship. Chains in which events happen independent of each other are have what is called a Parallel relationship. Parallel relationships can be both infinite and finite. I shall provide these terms in a future essay.

So, since each inquiry is a question that leads to another question that leads to another, it is a sequential relationship. Therefore it is finite, which means it necessarily has an end.

[Note: As stated, philosophical inquiry can be liked to a rectangle. The infinite length has a parallel relationship and the finite width has a sequential relationship.
So philosophical inquiry is 2 kinds: 1.Number of things we can ask in general 2.Number of things we can ask about something specially.
The 1st kind has a parallel relationship. For example the inquiry "What is gold?" has nothing to do with and is independent of "Why does the Sun glow?"
Yet once we ask "What is gold?" our inquiry will ultimately result in a sufficient response
and no extra answer would be required. Thus, "What is gold?" has a sequential relationship.]

Now we have identified what Philosophical Inquiry is. It is the basis of what we know as the "Socrates method of questioning" and it is also the oft used method of modern philosophy.

This essay was written to understand what is the essence of Philosophical Inquiry and the types of questions one can ask and the results one can expect. Since Philosophy is questioning, it is not only "what we can ask?" but "what we should ask?" The next essay will take a look at that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Summary: Philosophy is asking questions, seeking reasons, wanting answers. It is the three questions of "What?" "Why?" and "How?"

Philosophical questions are infinite in number - they have what we call "parallel relationships" - this is because they are NOT related via an answer.

Philosophical questions lead to answers and more questions - this chain will continue until an ultimate answer is reached (a sufficient response) - this chain is finite and has what we call a "sequential relationship" - this is because each question is related to another sequentially via an answer.

So, we can be sure of an ultimate answer, a sufficient response to every question. Yet, epistemological limitations may not allow us to know those responses.

The reason for an infinite number of questions available is due to our self-awareness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you have any comments, questions or criticisms, please add them. They will be welcome and acknowledged.